Here I ask for opinions about a small enhancement request about BigInt that Don
has refused:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7079
It's not a very important thing, so I will probably avoid further arguing after
this post :-)
In some languages like the ones derived from Pascal, like Ada, and in some
other languages Java the boolean type is very distinct from the integer values.
So to test if a integer value is zero you write something like:
int x = 10;
if (x == 0) {
// do A ...
} else {
// do B ...
}
In languages derived from C, like C++ and D and many others, like Python too,
the integer values are valid in a boolean context too. This is valid C/C++/D
code:
int x = 10;
if (x) {
// do B ...
} else {
// do A ...
}
This is handy in some situations, like when you want to count how many true
cases there are:
void main() {
auto s1 = "hello";
auto s2 = "hallo";
int hamming_distance = 0;
assert(s1.length == s2.length);
foreach (i, c1; s1)
hamming_distance += c1 != s2[i];
assert(hamming_distance == 1);
}
While in a Delphi/Java language you need something like:
if (c1 != s2[i])
hamming_distance++;
The implicit conversion from boolean to integer is equally handy in Python:
s1 = "hello"
s2 = "hallo"
hamming_distance = sum(c1 != c2 for c1,c2 in zip(s1, s2))
assert hamming_distance == 1
D language regards boolean values as a subset of integers so it allows implicit
conversion from bool to integer, but not from int to bool. I don't think this
will ever change in D2/D3:
void main() {
int x = 1;
bool b = true;
x = b; // bool -> int is OK
int y = x > 3; // bool -> int is OK
b = x; // int -> bool is an Error
}
While multi-precision numbers are not the fixed size integers, it is wise to
give multi-precision numbers the same rules and usages of the normal fixed size
integers _everywhere this is possible and handy_. This has some advantages like:
- Reduces the cognitive burden to remember where they differ;
- Allows for less work to adapt routines that work with integers to work with
BigInts. This is handy for generic code and for manual translation of code.
I have said everywhere this is possible and handy, because this is not always
possible. You can't use a BigInt to index an array, and there are some
situations where BigInts require a different algorithm (example:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7102 ). So I am not asking BigInt
to be a drop-in replacement for int in all cases.
But I have seen a hundred cases where in Python it's handy to use the built-in
multi-precision integers with normal algorithms useful for normal integers too.
So I have asked to allow implicit bool -> BigInt too:
import std.bigint;
void main() {
BigInt b = true;
}
This allows BigInt to be used as an int in a situation where it causes no harm.
Introducing an usage difference here between int and BigInt in my opinion is
gratuitous, doesn't help reduce bugs, it asks the programmer to remember one
difference between them that gives nothing useful back. So that code should be
accepted.
Bye,
bearophile

This allows BigInt to be used as an int in a situation where it causes no
harm. Introducing an usage difference here between int and BigInt in my opinion
is gratuitous, doesn't help reduce bugs, it asks the programmer to remember one
difference between them that gives nothing useful back. So that code should be
accepted.
Bye,
bearophile

FWIW, I've just added logical operations to my decimal number
library (https://github.com/andersonpd/decimal) and boolean
interoperability arose as a byproduct.
From std.bigint docs:
"All arithmetic operations are supported, except unsigned shift
right (>>>). Logical operations are not currently supported."
Maybe when support for logical ops are added support for booleans
will be introduced for consistency.
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 12:42:24 UTC, bearophile wrote:

Here I ask for opinions about a small enhancement request about
BigInt that Don has refused:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7079
It's not a very important thing, so I will probably avoid
further arguing after this post :-)
In some languages like the ones derived from Pascal, like Ada,
and in some other languages Java the boolean type is very
distinct from the integer values. So to test if a integer value
is zero you write something like:
int x = 10;
if (x == 0) {
// do A ...
} else {
// do B ...
}
In languages derived from C, like C++ and D and many others,
like Python too, the integer values are valid in a boolean
context too. This is valid C/C++/D code:
int x = 10;
if (x) {
// do B ...
} else {
// do A ...
}
This is handy in some situations, like when you want to count
how many true cases there are:
void main() {
auto s1 = "hello";
auto s2 = "hallo";
int hamming_distance = 0;
assert(s1.length == s2.length);
foreach (i, c1; s1)
hamming_distance += c1 != s2[i];
assert(hamming_distance == 1);
}
While in a Delphi/Java language you need something like:
if (c1 != s2[i])
hamming_distance++;
The implicit conversion from boolean to integer is equally
handy in Python:
s1 = "hello"
s2 = "hallo"
hamming_distance = sum(c1 != c2 for c1,c2 in zip(s1, s2))
assert hamming_distance == 1
D language regards boolean values as a subset of integers so it
allows implicit conversion from bool to integer, but not from
int to bool. I don't think this will ever change in D2/D3:
void main() {
int x = 1;
bool b = true;
x = b; // bool -> int is OK
int y = x > 3; // bool -> int is OK
b = x; // int -> bool is an Error
}
While multi-precision numbers are not the fixed size integers,
it is wise to give multi-precision numbers the same rules and
usages of the normal fixed size integers _everywhere this is
possible and handy_. This has some advantages like:
- Reduces the cognitive burden to remember where they differ;
- Allows for less work to adapt routines that work with
integers to work with BigInts. This is handy for generic code
and for manual translation of code.
I have said everywhere this is possible and handy, because this
is not always possible. You can't use a BigInt to index an
array, and there are some situations where BigInts require a
different algorithm (example:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7102 ). So I am
not asking BigInt to be a drop-in replacement for int in all
cases.
But I have seen a hundred cases where in Python it's handy to
use the built-in multi-precision integers with normal
algorithms useful for normal integers too.
So I have asked to allow implicit bool -> BigInt too:
import std.bigint;
void main() {
BigInt b = true;
}
This allows BigInt to be used as an int in a situation where it
causes no harm. Introducing an usage difference here between
int and BigInt in my opinion is gratuitous, doesn't help reduce
bugs, it asks the programmer to remember one difference between
them that gives nothing useful back. So that code should be
accepted.
Bye,
bearophile

From std.bigint docs:
"All arithmetic operations are supported, except unsigned shift
right (>>>). Logical operations are not currently supported."
Maybe when support for logical ops are added support for booleans
will be introduced for consistency.

D language regards boolean values as a subset of integers so it allows
implicit conversion from bool to integer, but not from int to bool. I don't
think this will ever change in D2/D3:

Discussing about pros and cons of such implicit conversion is one thing,
but that's already how it works for basic types, so I agree it must work
for more advanced ones.
After all, BigInt is a big int, and it should feel like that. If one
expects a += (b < c); to work for an int (and it works), it should work
for BigInts as well.
Another option is also disabling it for basic types, but better not
define different behavior for similar types.

Here I ask for opinions about a small enhancement request about BigInt
that Don has refused ...

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the same
concept, and even though many programming languages implement booleans
using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.
Using booleans as implicit integers can be seen as laziness (i.e. poor
documentation of coder's intent) or a legitimate mistake (i.e
unintentional usage by coder). By insisting that an explicit cast must be
used when one wants a boolean to behave as an integer allows the coder's
intent to become more apparent when reading their source code. This has
nothing to do with machine code generation, just source code legibility.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the same
concept, and even though many programming languages implement booleans
using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D allows
bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.
Not allowing a BigInt to be initialized with a bool value introduce an
inconsistency that makes BigInts more complex because there is one more rule to
remember, less inter-operable with ints, and I don't think it introduces
advantages.

Using booleans as implicit integers can be seen as laziness (i.e. poor
documentation of coder's intent) or a legitimate mistake (i.e
unintentional usage by coder).

In my code such mistakes are uncommon.

By insisting that an explicit cast must be
used when one wants a boolean to behave as an integer allows the coder's
intent to become more apparent when reading their source code. This has
nothing to do with machine code generation, just source code legibility.

Casts are powerful tools, they shut up the compiler and they assume the
programmer is perfectly right and has perfect knowledge of what's going on. In
practice my experience shows that the programmer (me too) sometimes doesn't
have perfect knowledge (usually because the code later was modified, turning
the cast into a bug because casts are often silent). This is why it's better to
avoid casts, not requiring them in the first place, unless they are useful. In
this case I think a cast introduces more danger than the risks caused by
implicit bool->int conversions.
Bye,
bearophile

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions - but converting
from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason to expand that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.
- Jonathan M Davis

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions

Using an expression in a conditional amounts to an explicit cast. This
is an unrelated issue. Implicit int -> bool conversion is disallowed in
D. It loses information.

- but converting from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason
to expand that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.
- Jonathan M Davis

There is really no problem with that. I have never seen anyone complain
about implicit bool -> int conversion. Why do you think it is bad? Does
anyone have an example to back up the claim that it is bad?

There is really no problem with that. I have never seen anyone complain
about implicit bool -> int conversion. Why do you think it is bad? Does
anyone have an example to back up the claim that it is bad?

They're completely different types and mean completely different things. It's
one thing to convert from a narrower integer to a wider one, but bool is _not_
an integer. Would you implicitly convert a string to an int? No. It's not a
number. I don't see any reason to treat bool any differently on that count.
bool isn't a number either. It's true or it's false. The problem is that C
conflated bool with int, and on some level that behavior still exists in D. But
bool and int are two entirely different types and entirely different concepts.
- Jonathan M Davis

There is really no problem with that. I have never seen anyone complain
about implicit bool -> int conversion. Why do you think it is bad? Does
anyone have an example to back up the claim that it is bad?

They're completely different types and mean completely different things. It's
one thing to convert from a narrower integer to a wider one, but bool is _not_
an integer. Would you implicitly convert a string to an int? No. It's not a
number. I don't see any reason to treat bool any differently on that count.
bool isn't a number either. It's true or it's false. The problem is that C
conflated bool with int, and on some level that behavior still exists in D. But
bool and int are two entirely different types and entirely different concepts.
- Jonathan M Davis

Entirely different concepts? oO
bool and int are in no way 'entirely different concepts'. Both are
fields. bool is (Z_2, ^, &) , int is (Z_(2^32), +, *). string is
conceptually a monoid.
Boolean algebra is the algebra of two values. At least in computer
science or digital design, those two values are 0 and 1. If there are
implicit conversions in a language at all, implicit bool -> int is a
natural thing to do. There is no such argument for string -> int.

bool and int are in no way 'entirely different concepts'. Both are
fields. bool is (Z_2, ^, &) , int is (Z_(2^32), +, *). string is
conceptually a monoid.
Boolean algebra is the algebra of two values. At least in computer
science or digital design, those two values are 0 and 1. If there are
implicit conversions in a language at all, implicit bool -> int is a
natural thing to do. There is no such argument for string -> int.

Boolean has the values are true and false. The fact that it's implemented as 1
and 0 is an implementation detail. Conceptually, a bool is _not_ a number any
more than a string is. As such, it shouldn't implicitly convert to a number
any more than a string does.
- Jonathan M Davis

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake.
...
I see no reason to expand that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.

I find implicit bool->int conversion handy, but... I like better the Pascal/Ada
way of keeping ints and bools more distinct. I don't like this aspect of the C
language that D has inherited.
So do you want to write an enhancement request to change the way D ints and
bools behave? OK. When D ints and bools will be changed the way you say then
I'll be happy to see BigInts changed back to refuse assignments from bools.
But now 99.9+% of the integral values you find in D programs are not bigInts,
so you are "expanding" something tiny. You are not improving code, you are just
making BigInts a bit weird compared to most other D code.
Bye,
bearophile

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions - but converting
from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason to expand that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.

I agree that bool -> int is wrong, but I also think that inconsistency
between int and BigInt is wrong.

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions - but converting
from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason to expand that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.
- Jonathan M Davis

A: "Um, so why does bool implicitly convert to int but not to BigInt?"
B: "Because the language's design contains an error. It is a huge
_problem_. Therefore we decided to keep it inconsistent. If you
re-parenthesise your expression however, your code will compile."
A: "Awesome!!"

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int
to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions - but
converting
from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason to expand
that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.
- Jonathan M Davis

A: "Um, so why does bool implicitly convert to int but not to BigInt?"
B: "Because the language's design contains an error. It is a huge
_problem_. Therefore we decided to keep it inconsistent. If you
re-parenthesise your expression however, your code will compile."
A: "Awesome!!"

As I said when I closed that post, it is _impossible_ for BigInt to
always behave the same as int. One example:
byte c = x & 0x7F;
This compiles if x is an int. It doesn't compile if x is a BigInt.
BigInt's job is to behave like a Euclidean integer, not to be a drop-in
replacement for built-in integer types.

My post seems to have been lost because of NG malfunction.
On 12/24/2011 09:17 AM, Don wrote:

On 24.12.2011 01:32, Timon Gehr wrote:

On 12/23/2011 11:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2011 17:19:26 bearophile wrote:

Derek Parnell:

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.

I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int
to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions - but
converting
from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason to expand
that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.
- Jonathan M Davis

A: "Um, so why does bool implicitly convert to int but not to BigInt?"
B: "Because the language's design contains an error. It is a huge
_problem_. Therefore we decided to keep it inconsistent. If you
re-parenthesise your expression however, your code will compile."
A: "Awesome!!"

As I said when I closed that post, it is _impossible_ for BigInt to
always behave the same as int. One example:
byte c = x & 0x7F;
This compiles if x is an int. It doesn't compile if x is a BigInt.

This is a limitation of the language. No case can be made that this
conversion would not be desirable, and it is an issue that is not
related a lot to what is being discussed in this thread.
By the way, is this also the rationale for why BigInt and long/ulong
cannot be compared for equality?

BigInt's job is to behave like a Euclidean integer, not to be a drop-in
replacement for built-in integer types.

It is not any more or any less valid to build an Euclidean integer from
a residue class than from a bool.
The main problem I have with bool -> int ok, int -> BigInt ok, bool ->
BigInt NG is that it kills the transitivity of the
implicitly-converts-to relation, not that I want to use BigInt as a
drop-in replacement for int.
By the way, bool does not implicitly convert to BigInt because
std.bigint contains a bug, not because it explicitly disallows it.
Negation does not work for bool therefore it does not compile even
though it would be unreachable code.
void opAssign(T: long)(T x) // T could be bool
{
data = cast(ulong)((x < 0) ? -x : x); // does not work for bool
sign = (x < 0);
}
This has other interesting implications:
struct S{
long x;
alias x this;
void opUnary()(){}
}
void main() {
import std.bigint;
S s;
BigInt x = s; // NG!
}

I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same
concept, and even though many programming languages implement booleans
using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.

D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.
Not allowing a BigInt to be initialized with a bool value introduce an
inconsistency that makes BigInts more complex because there is one more
rule to remember, less inter-operable with ints, and I don't think it
introduces advantages.

I agree that 'consistency' is a powerful argument. So it comes down to is
D meant to be the best language or an adequate language.
I maintain that D would be a better language if it didn't allow implicit
bool <-> int conversions. The most common thing that humans do to source
code is read it, in order to understand it's purpose and/or intentions. We
would do ourselves a service if we strive to make programing languages aid
this activity. Some implicit conversions can mask a coder's intentions,
and I believe that bool/int is one of those.

Using booleans as implicit integers can be seen as laziness (i.e. poor
documentation of coder's intent) or a legitimate mistake (i.e
unintentional usage by coder).

In my code such mistakes are uncommon.

But not impossible.

By insisting that an explicit cast must be
used when one wants a boolean to behave as an integer allows the coder's
intent to become more apparent when reading their source code. This has
nothing to do with machine code generation, just source code legibility.

Casts are powerful tools, they shut up the compiler and they assume the
programmer is perfectly right and has perfect knowledge of what's going
on.

Do you really believe that the purpose of casts are to "shut up the
compiler"? Seriously?

In practice my experience shows that the programmer (me too) sometimes
doesn't have perfect knowledge (usually because the code later was
modified, turning the cast into a bug because casts are often silent).

You realize that the exact argument can be made about implicit casts.

This is why it's better to avoid casts, not requiring them in the first
place, unless they are useful. In this case I think a cast introduces
more danger than the risks caused by implicit bool->int conversions.

If we assume that explicit casts are required for bool->int conversion,
can you show some code in which this could cause a problem?
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

This is why it's better to avoid casts, not requiring them in the
first place, unless they are useful. In this case I think a cast
introduces more danger than the risks caused by implicit bool->int
conversions.

If we assume that explicit casts are required for bool->int conversion,
can you show some code in which this could cause a problem?

I think stuff like
int z += x > y;
should ideally require a cast. That's a crazy operation.
The problem is compatibility with ancient C code (pre-C99), where you
may find:
alias int BOOL;
BOOL b = x > y;
Although BOOL is typed as 'int', it really has the semantics of 'bool'.
We have an example of this in D1's opEquals().
I think this is reason why implicit conversion bool -> int exists.
BTW, great to see you again, Derek!

This is why it's better to avoid casts, not requiring them in the
first place, unless they are useful. In this case I think a cast
introduces more danger than the risks caused by implicit bool->int
conversions.

If we assume that explicit casts are required for bool->int conversion,
can you show some code in which this could cause a problem?

I think stuff like
int z += x > y;
should ideally require a cast. That's a crazy operation.
The problem is compatibility with ancient C code (pre-C99), where you
may find:
alias int BOOL;
BOOL b = x > y;
Although BOOL is typed as 'int', it really has the semantics of 'bool'.
We have an example of this in D1's opEquals().
I think this is reason why implicit conversion bool -> int exists.
BTW, great to see you again, Derek!

As I said when I closed that post, it is _impossible_ for BigInt to
always behave the same as int. One example:
byte c = x & 0x7F;
This compiles if x is an int. It doesn't compile if x is a BigInt.
BigInt's job is to behave like a Euclidean integer, not to be a drop-in
replacement for built-in integer types.

As I have said in the first post of this thread I am not asking for impossible
things:

While multi-precision numbers are not the fixed size integers, it is wise to
give
multi-precision numbers the same rules and usages of the normal fixed size
integers
_everywhere this is possible and handy_. This has some advantages like:
- Reduces the cognitive burden to remember where they differ;
- Allows for less work to adapt routines that work with integers to work with
BigInts. This is handy for generic code and for manual translation of code.
I have said everywhere this is possible and handy, because this is not always
possible. You can't use a BigInt to index an array, and there are some
situations where BigInts require a different algorithm
(example: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7102 ).
So I am not asking
BigInt to be a drop-in replacement for int in all cases.

Despite this code is currently not accepted:
BigInt x;
byte c = x & 0x7F;
Refusing this too introduces another useless difference between ints and
BigInts:
void main() {
BigInt b = true;
}
Introducing differences between the two types is acceptable if it's required by
the semantic difference between the two types, or if it introduces some other
improvement. But this is not the case. So this argument of yours is invalid.
-------------------------
Derek Parnell:

In my code such mistakes are uncommon.

But not impossible.

Designing an engineering system like a programming language is often a matter
of trade-offs. If in my code I find a problem (like integer overflows) quite
more common than other ones (like bugs caused by implicit bool->int
conversions) it is very right for me to desire the first ones issued first.
Priorities are really important in engineering.

Casts are powerful tools, they shut up the compiler and they assume the
programmer is perfectly right and has perfect knowledge of what's going
on.

Do you really believe that the purpose of casts are to "shut up the
compiler"? Seriously?

I believe that casts often "shut up the compiler" but I don't belive that's
their purpose. One of their main purposes is to offer a standard way to break
the static type system in specific points of the program. Every type system
restricts the number of the acceptable programs. But programmers sometimes want
to write some of those programs. To do this they sometimes use casts. D casts
have other secondary purposes, like bit reinterpretation, etc.

In practice my experience shows that the programmer (me too) sometimes
doesn't have perfect knowledge (usually because the code later was
modified, turning the cast into a bug because casts are often silent).

Designing an engineering system like a programming language is often a
matter of trade-offs. If in my code I find a problem (like integer
overflows) quite more common than other ones (like bugs caused by
implicit bool->int conversions) it is very right for me to desire the
first ones issued first. Priorities are really important in engineering.

I agree that priorities are extremely important. However, I'm not seeing
that this bool->int conversion is an either-or situation. We are not being
forced to choose between integer overflow issues and bool->int conversion
issues. Our code should, right now, cater for both issues as it is not
really a great deal of work to write code that deals with both.

I believe that casts often "shut up the compiler" but I don't belive
that's their purpose. One of their main purposes is to offer a standard
way to break the static type system in specific points of the program.
Every type system restricts the number of the acceptable programs. But
programmers sometimes want to write some of those programs. To do this
they sometimes use casts. D casts have other secondary purposes, like
bit reinterpretation, etc.

Yes, 'cast' is a poor choice of word here. Sometimes we need to tell the
compiler to do a data conversion (transforming bits into a new format) and
sometimes we need to tell it to assume that the bits are already in the
correct format even though it would not otherwise agree with you.
One issue you have highlighted below is that 'cast(T)' is not exactly
totally explicit. The coder cannot simply tell if it is doing a data
conversion or a data re-interpretation. That requires some background
knowledge about D's internals. Furthermore, when doing a data conversion,
the 'cast(T)' syntax is only explicit about the target format; it implies
the source format from the datatype of its operand. And as you point out
below, that can be a source of bugs.

In practice my experience shows that the programmer (me too) sometimes
doesn't have perfect knowledge (usually because the code later was
modified, turning the cast into a bug because casts are often silent).

You realize that the exact argument can be made about implicit casts.

You are missing something important. Currently this code compiles, it
performs a silent implicit cast:
bool foo() { return true; }
void main() {
int x = foo();
}
Now you change the code, foo returns a double, the implicit cast stops
being accepted and the compiler gives an error:
double foo() { return 1.5; }
void main() {
int x = foo();
}
The same doesn't happen if you use an explicit cast. This is the
original code if we now require a cast to assign a bool to an int:
bool foo() { return true; }
void main() {
int x = cast(int)foo();
}
Now if you modify the code, so foo returns a double, the cast keeps
silencing the compiler and this is a possible bug that goes unnoticed
(you lose information doing double->int, while bit->int doesn't lose
information):
double foo() { return 1.5; }
void main() {
int x = cast(int)foo();
}

Yes, I agree that this is a potential source of bugs. So what we need is
something more explicit.
double foo() { return 1.5; }
void main() {
int x = cast(double:int)foo();
}
Now the code is very clear about your intentions for it, and if foo() is
later modified to return some incompatible datatype, the compile can alert
the coder.
And to be consistent, we need to have syntax that allows a coder to
explicitly tell the compiler to do a re-interpretation cast.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Yes, I agree that this is a potential source of bugs. So what we need is
something more explicit.
double foo() { return 1.5; }
void main() {
int x = cast(double:int)foo();
}
Now the code is very clear about your intentions for it, and if foo() is
later modified to return some incompatible datatype, the compile can
alert the coder.

auto explicitCast(From, To)(From value)
{
return cast(To) value;
}

And to be consistent, we need to have syntax that allows a coder to
explicitly tell the compiler to do a re-interpretation cast.

This is why it's better to avoid casts, not requiring them in the
first place, unless they are useful. In this case I think a cast
introduces more danger than the risks caused by implicit bool->int
conversions.

If we assume that explicit casts are required for bool->int conversion,
can you show some code in which this could cause a problem?

This is why it's better to avoid casts, not requiring them in the
first place, unless they are useful. In this case I think a cast
introduces more danger than the risks caused by implicit bool->int
conversions.

If we assume that explicit casts are required for bool->int conversion,
can you show some code in which this could cause a problem?

I think stuff like
int z += x > y;
should ideally require a cast.

What does anyone gain by adding bulky 'cast(int)' noise to their code
that is nothing but a no-op?

That's a crazy operation.

s/craz/nift/

The problem is compatibility with ancient C code (pre-C99), where you
may find:
alias int BOOL;
BOOL b = x > y;
Although BOOL is typed as 'int', it really has the semantics of 'bool'.
We have an example of this in D1's opEquals().
I think this is reason why implicit conversion bool -> int exists.

It exists because it is handy and makes sense. Would you also want to
ban implicit short -> int conversion?

Although BOOL is typed as 'int', it really has the semantics of 'bool'.
We have an example of this in D1's opEquals().
I think this is reason why implicit conversion bool -> int exists.

It exists because it is handy and makes sense. Would you also want to
ban implicit short -> int conversion?

A 'short' is a type of integer, an 'int' is a type of integer, but a
'bool' is NOT a type of integer.
One can do arithmetic with two integers but what does 'TRUTH * TRUTH'
mean? Or what does 'FALSEHOOD - TRUTH' mean?
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Although BOOL is typed as 'int', it really has the semantics of 'bool'.
We have an example of this in D1's opEquals().
I think this is reason why implicit conversion bool -> int exists.

It exists because it is handy and makes sense. Would you also want to
ban implicit short -> int conversion?

A 'short' is a type of integer, an 'int' is a type of integer, but a
'bool' is NOT a type of integer.
One can do arithmetic with two integers

If so, then 'short' is not a type of integer.

but what does 'TRUTH * TRUTH'
mean? Or what does 'FALSEHOOD - TRUTH' mean?

TRUTH and FALSEHOOD are in my understanding not values, so performing
operations on them is nonsensical.
Having the symbols {0, 1} as the boolean values is a common convention,
even outside programming language implementations or computer
science/digital design. So TRUE * TRUE = 1*1 = 1 and FALSE - TRUE = 0 -
1 = -1 makes sense.

Another issue is that it is a mere convention that C uses 1 to represent
TRUE and 0 to represent FALSE. There are some languages that use 0 for
FALSE (all bits off) and -1 for TRUE (all bits on).
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia